Microsoft is in serious trouble in Europe, where the court is expected to fine them heavily and/or order changes in the Windows software bundling.
MS claims that to remove the Media Player would cripple Windows and even
As a former systems programmer, I find that absurd. Sure, they could make the two functions intertwined if they deliberately wanted to, but they could also make them very independent, and since MS develops software with large teams, it is more likely that they work on stuff as separate modules.
I’m getting a serious attack of Deja Vu here. Isn’t this pretty much the claim MS made years ago in U.S. courts that disabling the IE browser would trash the operating system? And competitors showed that not only was that hogwash, but removing some “essential” parts of the opsys actually made it run faster? (Windows Lite)
And then again what defines an operating system and what defines an application. You do know of course anything that if Microsoft says it is necessary then of course it must be necessary. Or don’t you get that. What I do like about the Microsoft model is that once you have the product you have to keep paying because what work this year wont work next year. New features and everything. Just wait untill they goes subscription. And this has been on the agenda at Microsoft as well as here on the SDMB.
If I were Bill Gates, I would try and buy all the shares of Microsoft, and stop distributing Windows and retire.
I still don’t get what these lawsuits are for. At the time of the IE lawsuits, I was able to run Mozilla browsers without a hitch. And now with the MP 9.0 BS, Winamp plays everything MP does. What’s the problem? Seriously, if you want to run Real, AOL, or whatever your little heart desires, then do it. I’ve never had a problem running any program in Windows in which Windows tried to stop me from doing so. Just uncheck the 'make sure IE is your default browser?", or whatever checkbox and you’re set. And with many other media type programs, file associations will open your MP3’s, MPG’s, AVI’s, and yes even WMV’s (and WMA’s) - a MS format.
It’s not so hard. Microsoft develops an application, makes it an “integral” part of an operating system, and passes the cost of developing the software on to any consumer wants to use their operating system.
The consumer has payed for the software, whether they wanted to or not. This is an unfair trade practice, since independent software developers are starting from a position where the consumer already has a competing product.
Hey, I have Outlook Express, Internet Explorer, and Windows Media Player taking up space on my hard drive, too. I consider them to be inferior products, so I have acquired other applications that meet my requirements. Some of these are freely distributed, and while others had to be paid for. I am forced to pay for the development of crappy software that I’ll never use – and Microsoft has deliberately made it “an integrated part of the operating system” to try to weasel around antitrust legislation designed to protect the consumers’ interests. If everyone is forced to support inferior software, developers have a harder time justifying the risk of trying to develop better software. Opera kicks IE’s pasty ass, but it’s still a minority browser, because it’s hard to convince Windows users to part with $40.00 since they’ve already got a half-assed browser out-of-the-box. Which they’ve paid for. Whether they like it or not.
I don’t want to pay for the crap, and I don’t want it sitting on my system, taking up space and even resources.
Money’s not the issue. Mozilla is free, and is also far better than IE.
Ignorance is the problem. And MS’ behaviour fosters that ignorance. I downloaded Mozilla as soon as I’d heard about it - unfortunately, that was after two years, two major adware attacks and endless frustrtation with IE. Other browsers need to reach a critical mass, where people no longer say “why”, but “why not?”
That said, MS’ bullshit about Media Player disgusts me.
Money is still an issue though, even with free alternatives. I use Mozilla Thunderbird instead of Outlook. I’m still paying for the development of Outlook Express when I purchase a licensed MS OS, even if I’d sooner invite strangers to palpate my prostate than risk configuring it for use with my POP server. I am forced to pay for a shoddy product, if I want to use Windows. That superior solutions are available for free doesn’t take the sting off at all – quite the contrary.
Open Source software is great for end users – but it doesn’t help commercial developers looking to release software for Windows – the market is unfairly rigged against them.
An honest approach for Microsoft to take would be to separate the distribution of the OS from bundled software. Two CDs, individually priced. Other developers can write software that supports itself without riding on the coattails of a popular OS – and Microsoft can, too.
If sales of their Starter Bundle software start to slip, they’ll have some incentive to produce something that compares favourably with the competition – like honest capitalists.
If people could pay for each individual application within the Windows OS then how many people would still be using IE, Outlook, Media Player, I doubt these divisions of Microsoft would make enough to keep developing this crap.
I guess what fries my hiney about Microsoft – and this DOES relate to the OP – is that they could make an operating system that would be used by most of the world’s computers and make a shitload of money. They would probably still be the biggest, richest kid on the block with just that basic product. It could provide a good, universal, and stabile platform for others to build upon for great applications. And those app companies would worship them if they made the opsys better, faster, leaner and easier to interface with.
But MS seems intent on, thru the power of bundling, shoving everyone else aside or trampling them under. The shitload of money from the now-bloated opsys alone isn’t big enough, and this pretty much defines naked greed in my book. And then they have the effrontery to try telling us (and the courts, no less) that what they are doing is a service to the consumer. What they actually are doing is a number on the consumer.
And 5 years later, after being slapped for it once in the U.S., they try it again. Maybe they think Europe is so far away from Redmond that the news won’t get back there in time to have any effect on their bottom line.
Granted. But as someone who has to support what breaks and interface with what doesn’t, I have a problem. I personally wouldn’t touch Outlook, for example, with a 10-foot tube, but when my clients’ Outlook misbehaves, I have to know how to patch it up. And I have to know how to perform uniquely-Outlook functions, since I have to show them how to do what they cannot find out for themselves (like how to send or receive a message).
Likewise, IE is not my favorite browser, but I have to know what it does and how to manipulate it, since all my clients have it and a lecture on MS evils isn’t going to sway them much. Such a controversy is way over the average user’s head. They just want to turn their computer on, get their email, and surf the dangerous Internet.
